fORMS Noobie guide for Getting XP to run smooth as butter

[JackMDS]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: JackMDS
The Disk fragmentation issue has merit in this way.

E.g. You have a 30GB drive that reads 5GB free.

If the drive is terribly fragmented and you try to save 4GB of files the hard drive would have ?terrible? time in maneuvering and writing the info to the available segments.

Computers that tend to over heat or are not stable might freeze in this process.

That's not a fragmentation issue, that's a system issue. Your system should be able to be working at full steam without issues.

The numbers that I chose for demonstration purposes are not coincidental.

You can call it any name that you want. If the hard drive is physically fragmented and
you need to store an additional very Big file, more work is needed to hunt and peck the free segments, and additional resources have to be dedicated to do it.


:sun:

 

[fORM]

We're going to keep this thread going

I've enjoyed all the 1 liners from the peanut gallery. Keep em coming.

As for the defrag issue..I dug into it a little more and found some interesting responses from some qualified people.

Thoughts:


#1 "Comment from pjedmond" feedback
Date: 02/15/2005 01:27AM PST Comment


As to whether it is possible to make a a system crash:

It shouldn't be.....*but*......fragmentation leads to the greater use of system resources in order to recover the information, so it is possible that a 'poorly behaved' program could crash as a result of it not getting the information that it needs in the expected timescale, or due to resources available not being quite right'.

As for the hard drive itself, modern hard drives are fairly robust and should be able to cope with this, but moving the head around creates heat, continuous movement of the head (especially from one extreme to another) is more likely to cause a 'skip' and give you a read error, which may cause a problem. (Butterfly read tests deliberately test for this type of thing in disc diagnostic packages). .....but if the drive is new and not been abused (dropped), then it should be OK.

The bottom line is that systems are so complex, it is virtually impossible to point the finger at a single aspect that is causing a problem in this type of scenario. However, because the systems are so complex, this is one area where the 'added complexity' caused by the disc fragmentation could have an effect as it is unlikely that the rest of the operating system and applications can get tested comprehensively for this type of thing. If you appear to have a problem, then fragmentation is resolveable, and you might as well defrag before trying more expensive solutions.

HTH


#2 Comment from SoyYop feedback
Date: 02/15/2005 04:21AM PST

Comment:


If your harddsk is failing, some extra work could lead to a raise in temperture. That leads to an expansion in the disc plates, and that could lead -on a failing or overheated hard disk" to the OS to be unable to read some sectors.

I've ruined an old HD with NT4 years ago using a defragmentation program over night. Fatigue and overheat could ruin them.

Yes, it may be related. Sometimes, the hard disk just can't handle the process of doing an exact jump for reading from one sector to another, and after a few attemps, if may give the OS an CRC error. Defragmenting may prevent that, but I would change the HD anyway.

BUT, if it has great fragmentation, I assume it's an old harddisk. My experience at this point is:

-If you get blue screens, look at the message
-Check Memory
-Change the IDE cable
-Change the hard disk
-Use ntfs and different partitions for swapping & user data

 

[bsobel]

fORM, since you know *so much* about this issue, why is it you needed to go get a second opinion?.

I commend you for trying to learn, but to be fair, you should tell them what your claiming. Specifically "In most cases of severe fragmentation, some applications may not run at all" and "If you're clicking rapidly and trying to get your desktop back the system may often crash or freeze because it's badly fragmented"

Please, seriously, update your thread over there to include those two quotes. If not, I'd be happy to.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: JackMDS

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: JackMDS
The Disk fragmentation issue has merit in this way.

E.g. You have a 30GB drive that reads 5GB free.

If the drive is terribly fragmented and you try to save 4GB of files the hard drive would have ?terrible? time in maneuvering and writing the info to the available segments.

Computers that tend to over heat or are not stable might freeze in this process.

That's not a fragmentation issue, that's a system issue. Your system should be able to be working at full steam without issues.

The numbers that I chose for demonstration purposes are not coincidental.

You can call it any name that you want. If the hard drive is physically fragmented and
you need to store an additional very Big file, more work is needed to hunt and peck the free segments, and additional resources have to be dedicated to do it.


:sun:

And that wouldn't be a crash due to fragmentation, but due to poor system design. Any big increase in system resource usage would cause similar problems.

 

[JackMDS]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
And that wouldn't be a crash due to fragmentation, but due to poor system design. Any big increase in system resource usage would cause similar problems.

LOL.

OK. We can be both Right, let?s call it System Crash secondary to fragmentation problem.:beer:

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: JackMDS

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
And that wouldn't be a crash due to fragmentation, but due to poor system design. Any big increase in system resource usage would cause similar problems.

LOL.

OK. We can be both Right, let?s call it System Crash secondary to fragmentation problem.:beer:

:beer:

 

[bsobel]

Harvey and I are the oldest two people (age wise) who participated in this tread.:beer:

Ok, I admit that I'm curious, how have you determined that?

 

[bsobel]

You can call it any name that you want. If the hard drive is physically fragmented and
you need to store an additional very Big file, more work is needed to hunt and peck the free segments, and additional resources have to be dedicated to do it.

Under the same logic, your IO counts could seriously be lowered (I'm not arguing that point at all, there is a reason we write defraggers). The lower IO count could actually lower stress on the system vs if that large file was written sequentially.

Point being, we can articulate any theory we want about this to show some unique case that could, in theory, on Mondays, during a blue moon, cause a problem.. But most of the claims made by the OP are just that, made up.

Jack, in your experience on XP, have you ever seen either of the following two things occur: "In most cases of severe fragmentation, some applications may not run at all" or "If you're clicking rapidly and trying to get your desktop back the system may often crash or freeze because it's badly fragmented"

Best,
Bill

 

[stash]

As for the defrag issue..I dug into it a little more and found some interesting responses from some qualified people.

Ok, I'll bite. What makes these people more qualified than say, Bill? Have then written a defragger?

 

[JackMDS]

Originally posted by: bsobelJack, in your experience on XP, have you ever seen either of the following two things occur: "In most cases of severe fragmentation, some applications may not run at all" or "If you're clicking rapidly and trying to get your desktop back the system may often crash or freeze because it's badly fragmented"

Best,
Bill

?Applications Not Running at all?? I Remember such in issue with Win98 I do not recall seeing it on WinXP.

?Rapidly and trying to get your desktop back the system may often crash or freeze because it's badly fragmented". Sure this happens, but I do not know what the contribution of bad fragmentation to it is.

As a frame of reference. When I install new WinXP I set it immediately to a big static Swap file. So my swap space is contiguous and there is No need to add Hard Drive related resources drain in resizing the swap file in the middle of the work.

:sun:

 

[dragonlord2112]

Originally posted by: duragezic
The only thing I learned from this thread is to ignore fORM's posts for the rest of my time here.

Well, that and I may switch back to a Windows-managed swap file, but I'm not sure what the real verdict is on that one yet.

See, I read in PC Magazine's XP tweaking guide about the pagefile and setting it to 1000/1500 was a good thing.

So what IS the verdict on that? It seems to be tiny bit more efficient, especially on machines with low amounts of RAM...
:beer:

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: dragonlord2112

Originally posted by: duragezic
The only thing I learned from this thread is to ignore fORM's posts for the rest of my time here.

Well, that and I may switch back to a Windows-managed swap file, but I'm not sure what the real verdict is on that one yet.

See, I read in PC Magazine's XP tweaking guide about the pagefile and setting it to 1000/1500 was a good thing.

So what IS the verdict on that? It seems to be tiny bit more efficient, especially on machines with low amounts of RAM...
:beer:

Nothing is efficient on machines with insufficient ram.

 

[bsobel]

?Applications Not Running at all?? I Remember such in issue with Win98 I do not recall seeing it on WinXP.

Due to fragmentation, or do to the defragger running? There were a zillion deadlock issues under the 9x platform due to the horible single writer lock design, it wasn't uncommon for the defragger (anyones) to lock the system depending on whom else was accessing the file system. But this wasn't related to fragmentation per say (just the need to take the drive lock). Curious if this is what your thinking about, or indeed a case where a fragmented drive kept a program from launching.

Bill

 

[KoolDrew]

See, I read in PC Magazine's XP tweaking guide about the pagefile and setting it to 1000/1500 was a good thing.

I think I read an article in that magazine a while back and it was pretty bad at the stupid advice they gave. I think there was a topic at ars about it too.

 

[dragonlord2112]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: dragonlord2112

Originally posted by: duragezic
The only thing I learned from this thread is to ignore fORM's posts for the rest of my time here.

Well, that and I may switch back to a Windows-managed swap file, but I'm not sure what the real verdict is on that one yet.

See, I read in PC Magazine's XP tweaking guide about the pagefile and setting it to 1000/1500 was a good thing.

So what IS the verdict on that? It seems to be tiny bit more efficient, especially on machines with low amounts of RAM...
:beer:

Nothing is efficient on machines with insufficient ram.

Hehe ok lemme fix that:
It seems to more tolerable on low amounts of RAM.

 

[tiap]

A really entertaining thread.

Originally posted by: JackMDS
I have No doubt that Mr. fORM has Good Intentions. :thumbsup:

However his post is suffering from the Self centered phenomenon that plagues a lot of the info that is exchanged on public forums.:thumbsdown:

Those are by far the brightest words posted in this thread. This guy has a real world understanding of computers and how people interact with them.

You don't give noobies this kind of advice. Most noobies don't even have their terminology straight. How many times have we heard of a noobie complaining that they can't download a file, when in reality, they are having problems copying a file to floppy or cd? And these same people should play with Hijackthis???
When a 45 year old office worker has trouble with their car and calls the dealership for assistance, 100% of the time, the advice they get is to bring in or have the car towed to the dealership. They don't offer to fax them a repair guide or offer self help over the phone. When a noobie has problems with a box, fix it for him. Most of them don't care or even know if the box isn't running as it should, until it barely won't work at all or maybe not even boot. The vast majority of boxes I look at are probably running at 30% and the owners rarely even realize it. Most just care about the cost. We tend to forget that the vast majority of computer users, surf a little, do lots of email and maybe, for the adventurous, some digital pictures.

 

[fORM]

We're keeping the thread going by getting various feedback from other members and or people. I don't think we need to confuse the audience by adding additional phrases to the question. The synopsis of this problem is condensed in the post I made and I think thats the low and heavy of what we're discussing here.

Maybe some progarms as one member quoted rely on this : 'poorly behaved' program could crash as a result of it not getting the information that it needs in the expected timescale, or due to resources available not being quite right'.

If we waited it out....XP in theory is supposed to work it's way through and freezes or hour glass moments. Most of us don't have the patience to wait for this.


More on clicking....(impatient, button mashing)
Another example i've seen on some rigs (totally seperate from the defrag stuff) is when some apps ie, "AnyDvd & Norton Corporate" are loaded into the startup. The Norton takes a few moments upon startup as well as Anydvd and a few others. Lets say the user wants to quickly check their outlook express. They have tons of tray icons + startup files. They don't wait for their desktop to fully load. They click on the shortcuts only to watch the icons fade in and out. They also try to click on IE to see if there browser is working. Next they load ctrl alt del to try and shut down some processes..So far nothing has loaded...the user believes his unit is locked up as he can not navigate any of the apps he desires. He sits there, and if his computer is slow (old AMD) & hes now tried to launch numerous apps but nothing has happened. He reboots...believing there was no way out.

 

[bsobel]

I don't think we need to confuse the audience by adding additional phrases to the question.

Haha, confuse them. Yea that's it. How about, "I really don't want to post the made up claims I made in this thread over there, people would realize how little I know". I also love how we have teams now "In this argument of ours we have 1 team that believes that the system can crash due to severe fragmentation and 1 team that is totally opposed to that idea". Maybe that should read 'in this argument of ours I, without any backing evidence, believe .... and the other team who has intimate knowledge of file systems and defragmenters disagree"

Maybe some progarms as one member quoted rely on this...

Aww, now we are down to 'maybe'. But you said this happens all the time, albeit you can't provide one example.

More on clicking....(impatient, button mashing)

Completely unrelated discussion removed. I have no argument with the example you posted, but it has nothing to do with what you claimed.

Bill

p.s. Nice sig, you should extend it with a link to this thread...

 

[imported_Lucifer]

fORM idolizes you bsobel.

 

[metallibloke]

fORM reminds me of DrCool in this thread.

 

[Sunner]

For some reason this thread reminds me of another thread from not too long ago...

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: Sunner
For some reason this thread reminds me of another thread from not too long ago...

*cough*

 

[Rookie]

wow. i want the 30 secs it took to read the first page back. seriously.

 

[SunnyD]

- Okay, I just partitioned my drive into two partitions, a 30gig partition for the OS and the remaining 2gig for my applications. Is this going to be enough?
- Also, I've run Hijackthis - I don't know what it did, but I had to install Netscape after running it to get here to read the next steps and post.
- I ran spybot - YAY, it found a lot of things called "tracking cookies" and took care of them. I guess that's good?
- I did the msconfig thing, and unset everything that was set to run at startup. The only thing that I noticed is that when the computer restarted I had no sound and my video was running really slow. Other than that, everything seems to be running faster.
- I turned off the XP Theme and went to classic mode as suggested - but now I can't find my control panel or my network connections! HELP!
- I've been running defrag repeatedly, it keeps telling me that I don't need to though. I just want to make my machine crash proof.
- I have several icons next to my clock, which I've just shut off. There was this McAfee one, something called Critical Updates, I can't make the one labeled Safely Remove Hardware...
- I've deleted HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE... do I need to reboot now?
- I've deleted all the desktop files. I can't find my resume now, where did it go?
- Remote assistance - what's that? I can't find it anywhere... I guess I just don't have it.
- I pressed Control-Alt-Delete... all I see are some buttons like Shut Down and stuff like that. Where are these processes and fishy things?
- I did this "check disc" thing you said, but nothing happened. Is it supposed to do something?

 

[stash]

Exactly ^